Happy 2011!

December 30, 2010 at 7:06 pm | Posted in Celebrations | Leave a comment

From the Res Communis blog faculty and staff…….



Res Communis Takes Time to Celebrate

December 24, 2010 at 12:50 pm | Posted in Celebrations | Leave a comment

by Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty

The Res Communis faculty and staff wish you and yours all the best this holiday season! We will be posting but on a reduced basis during this time. Res Communis will return to full form at the beginning of 2011. In the meantime, Happy Holidays!


 

Russia and India sign agreement giving India access to GLONASS

December 23, 2010 at 1:35 pm | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: The Hindu

India and Russia on Tuesday signed an agreement to share high-precision signals from the Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) for defence as well as civilian use. The agreement was signed on the sidelines of the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s Indian visit.

As per the agreement, Russia will provide access to the GLONASS high-precision navigation signals to India. Russia currently has a total of 26 GLONASS satellites in orbit, of which 23 are operational. GLONASS is the Russian equivalent of the United States’ global positioning system that allows users to determine a near precise position of any object to within metres.

Notably, in March this year, the Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and Russian Navigation Information Systems (NIS) GLONASS signed a ‘Memorandum of Cooperation’. Later, representatives from NIS-GLONASS and ISRO’s commercial arm, Antrix Corporation, agreed to set up a joint venture providing navigation and information services on the GLONASS/GPS platform.


NASA Advisory Council: Planetary Protection Meeting on January 20, 2011

December 23, 2010 at 10:22 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Federal Register

[Federal Register: December 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 80850-80851]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23de10-114]

=======================================================================
———————————————————————–

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: (10-168)]

NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Planetary Protection
Subcommittee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Planetary Protection
Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee
reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The Meeting will be held
for the purpose of soliciting from the scientific community and other
persons scientific and technical information relevant to program
planning.

DATES: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Friday,
January 21, 2011, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Local Time.

ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Room 7H45, Washington,
DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marian Norris, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4452,
fax (202) 358-4118, or mnorris@nasa.gov.

FAA Notice of Proposed Interpretation concerning 14 CFR Part 135

December 23, 2010 at 10:17 am | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Federal Register

[Federal Register: December 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 246)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 80746-80747]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23de10-22]

———————————————————————–

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 135

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1259]

Interpretation of Rest Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed interpretation.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: This action proposes to interpret the application of 14 CFR
135.263 and the rest requirements of Sec. 135.267(d) to situations in
which a flight crewmember’s flight time exceeds the permissible limits
due to circumstances beyond his or her control. As discussed below, the
FAA issued several interpretations addressing this issue in the 1990s.
However, because the proposed interpretation relies heavily on a
seminal FAA interpretation issued in 2000, the proposed interpretation
would supersede any previous contrary interpretations of Sec. Sec.
135.263 and 135.267(d).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2010-
1259 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov
and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send Comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Zektser, Attorney, Regulations
Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
3073; e-mail: Alex.Zektser@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites interested persons to submit written comments,
data, or views concerning this proposal. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for
any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the
docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy
of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically,
please submit your comments only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposal. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will
consider all comments received on or before the closing date for
comments and any late-filed comments if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of comments received.

Availability of This Proposed Interpretation

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by–
(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov
);
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office’s Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.

[[Page 80747]]

You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this proposal.

Background

The FAA has been asked to provide a legal interpretation regarding
the application of 14 CFR 135.263 and 135.267(d) to the following
factual scenario.
An operator plans a flight that is anticipated to be completed
within a 13.5-hour duty day. However, unanticipated delays (such as
late passengers and late cargo) occur before the last leg of the
flight, and these delays would extend the flight beyond a 14-hour duty
day if the last leg is completed. The proposed interpretation would
clarify whether the crew may take off on the last leg of the flight,
knowing in advance that they will not receive the 10 hours of rest
required in a 24-hour period by section 135.267(d).

Discussion of the Proposal

Section 135.267(d) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations
requires that a flight assignment operating under section 135.267(b)
and (c) must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during
the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the
assignment. Under this section, a duty day may not exceed 14 hours in a
24-hour period without infringing on the required rest time. However,
section 135.267(d) works in conjunction with 14 CFR 135.263(d), which
provides that:

A flight crewmember is not considered to be assigned flight time
in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he is
assigned normally terminate within the limitations, but due to
circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder or flight
crewmember (such as adverse weather conditions), are not at the time
of departure expected to reach their destination within the planned
flight time.

In the 1990s, the FAA interpreted sections 135.263(d) and
135.267(d) to permit flight crewmembers to take off on flights that
were scheduled to be completed within a 14-hour duty period even though
circumstances beyond the crewmembers’ control extended the actual duty
time beyond the permissible 14-hour period. See, e.g., Aug. 30, 1993,
Letter to Mr. Ross from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations and Enforcement; Mar. 30, 1992, Letter to Kevin Wilson from
Donald P. Byrne.
However, in 2000, the FAA issued a seminal interpretation of a
section that is nearly identical to section 135.263(d). That section,
14 CFR 121.471(g), states that:

A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for flight
time in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he
is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate within the
limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the
certificate holder (such as adverse weather conditions), are not at
the time of departure expected to reach their destination within the
scheduled time.

The FAA’s 2000 interpretation stated that the language of section
121.471(g) created an exception to pilot flight time limitations, but
did not provide an exception for pilot rest requirements. See Nov. 20,
2000, Letter to Captain Richard D. Rubin from James W. Whitlow, Deputy
Chief Counsel (“Whitlow Letter”). The Whitlow Letter’s validity was
subsequently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit,
and since that time, the FAA has consistently applied the Whitlow
Letter in its interpretations of section 121.471(g). See Air Transport
Ass’n of America, Inc. v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d 49 (DC Cir. 2002) (upholding
the validity of the Whitlow Letter). See, e.g., Mar. 18, 2009, Letter
to William E. Banks, Jr. from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief
Counsel for Regulations (noting that section 121.471(g) does not
provide an exception for rest requirements); Jan. 11, 2005, Letter to
Jan Marcus from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations (same).
The FAA has determined that it is illogical that the nearly-
identical regulatory language in sections 121.471(g) and 135.263(d) is
interpreted in two different ways. See Air Transport Ass’n, 291 F.3d at
51 n.1 (stating that “[t]he substance of the rules in Parts 121 and
135 is essentially the same and the rules are likewise interpreted”).
As such, the FAA proposes to apply the Whitlow Letter’s interpretation
of 121.471(g) to sections 135.263(d) and 135.267(d). Because the
Whitlow Letter and the subsequent interpretations based on the Whitlow
Letter are more recent than the 1990s interpretations of sections
135.263(d) and 135.267(d), the Whitlow Letter line of interpretations
best reflects the FAA’s current understanding of the pertinent
regulatory language. As such, the proposed application of the Whitlow
Letter to sections 135.263(d) and 135.267(d) would supersede any
contrary pre-Whitlow interpretations of these sections.
Under the proposed interpretation, section 135.263(d) would not
create an exception for flight crewmember rest requirements. As such,
if a flight crewmember was to be aware at the time of departure on the
last leg of the flight that he or she has not had the required rest, 14
CFR 135.267(d) would prohibit him or her from departing on the last leg
of the flight.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 17, 2010.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-32234 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

 

Legislation introduced to protect privacy rights at airport security

December 22, 2010 at 10:36 am | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: KFBB.com

While Americans are preparing for one of the busiest travel weeks of the year, Senator Jon Tester is introducing legislation to protect privacy rights at airport security.

Many travelers are concerned that new high-tech scanners produce revealing body images. On Thursday, Tester introduced a bill that would criminalize any misuse of airport body-scan images by federal employees.

The Transportation Security Administration forbids security screeners from saving or identifying body-scan images.

But Tester’s legislation would make it a federal crime to permanently photograph, record or distribute any image produced using a full-body scanner.

Federal employees who break the law would face up to one year in prison and a $100-thousand dollar fine under Tester’s legislation.

Boeing to Build 3-Satellite System for Government of Mexico

December 22, 2010 at 10:24 am | Posted in Telecommunications | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Space Ref

Boeing (NYSE:BA) today announced that it has received a contract for approximately $1 billion from the government of Mexico to deliver an end-to-end satellite communications system. The system, known as MEXSAT, will consist of three satellites, two ground sites, associated network operations systems and reference user terminals. MEXSAT will provide secure communications for Mexico’s national security needs, as well as enhanced coverage for the country’s civil telecommunications.  [full story]

Federal Communications Commission Final Rule

December 22, 2010 at 10:17 am | Posted in Aerospace Law Interfaces | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Federal Register

[Federal Register: December 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 245)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 80354-80363]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22de10-17]

=======================================================================
———————————————————————–

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[ET Docket No. 10-152; FCC 10-194]

Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 and
Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: In this document the Commission, adopts a point-to-point
predictive model for determining the ability of individual locations to
receive an over-the-air digital television broadcast signal at the
intensity level needed for service through the use of an antenna as
required by the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010
(STELA). The STELA reauthorizes the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (SHVERA) by extending the statutory
copyright license for satellite carriage of distant broadcast signals,
as well as provisions in the Communications Act, and by amending
certain provisions in the Communications Act and the Copyright Act.

DATES: Effective January 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-2925, e-mail: Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov, TTY
(202) 418-2989.
[For full Notice click here]

DOC National Telecommunications and Information Administration: Notice and Request for Public Comments

December 22, 2010 at 10:09 am | Posted in Aerospace Law Interfaces | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Federal Register

[Federal Register: December 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 80042-80044]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21de10-31]

———————————————————————–

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Office of the Secretary

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

International Trade Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

[Docket No. 101214614-0614-01]
RIN 0660-XA22

Information Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce; National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce; International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce; National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice and request for public comments.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force is
conducting a comprehensive review of the nexus between privacy policy
and innovation in the Internet economy. On April 23, 2010, the
Department published a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment from all
Internet stakeholders on the impact of current privacy laws in the
United States and around the world on the pace of innovation in the
information economy. The Department now seeks further comment on its
report entitled, “Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the
Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework,” available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/internetpolicytaskforce/
. Through this Notice
requesting comments on the report, the Department hopes to spur further
discussion with Internet stakeholders that will lead to the development
of a series of Administration positions that will help develop an
action plan in this important area.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by mail to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC
20230. Submissions may be in any of the following formats: HTML, ASCII,
Word, rtf, or pdf. Online submissions in electronic form may be sent to
privacynoi2010@ntia.doc.gov. Paper

[[Page 80043]]

submissions should include a three and one-half inch computer diskette
or compact disc (CD). Diskettes or CDs should be labeled with the name
and organizational affiliation of the filer and the name of the word
processing program used to create the document. Comments will be posted
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/internetpolicytaskforce/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this Notice
contact: Aaron Burstein, Office of Policy Analysis and Development,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4725,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1880; e-mail
aburstein@ntia.doc.gov; or Manu Bhardwaj, Office of Policy Analysis and
Development, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4985; e-mail
mbhardwaj@ntia.doc.gov. Please direct media inquires to NTIA’s Office
of Public Affairs at (202) 482-7002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Recognizing the vital importance of the Internet to U.S.
innovation, prosperity, education, and political and cultural life, the
Department has made it a top priority to ensure that the Internet
remains open for innovation. The Department established the Internet
Policy Task Force to identify leading public policy and operational
challenges in the Internet environment. The Task Force leverages
expertise across many bureaus, including those responsible for domestic
and international information and communications technology policy,
international trade, cyber security standards and best practices,
intellectual property, business advocacy and export control.
Moreover, the Obama Administration has launched an initiative to
develop an interagency policy structure for commercial data privacy
issues. The Commerce Department’s General Counsel Cameron Kerry and the
Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal
Policy Christopher H. Schroeder chair a recently launched subcommittee
of the National Science and Technology Council that the White House has
chartered to work on Privacy and Internet Policy issues. Through that
vehicle, the Administration is engaging agencies throughout the U.S.
Government in a conversation on commercial data privacy to ensure that
the Administration speaks with one voice and takes advantage of its
many areas of expertise to promote the development of strategic and
comprehensive Internet privacy policies.
Background: The Department has launched the Privacy and Innovation
Initiative to identify policies that will enhance: (1) The clarity,
transparency, scalability and flexibility needed to foster innovation
in the information economy; and (2) the public confidence necessary for
full citizen participation with the Internet. On April 23, 2010, the
Department published a Notice of Inquiry seeking public comment from
all Internet stakeholders, including the commercial, academic and civil
society sectors, on the impact of current privacy laws in the United
States and around the world on the pace of innovation in the
information economy.\1\ Through that Notice of Inquiry, the Department
sought to understand whether current privacy laws serve consumer
interests and fundamental democratic values. The Department also held a
symposium on May 7, 2010, to discuss stakeholder views and to
facilitate further public discussion on privacy policy in the United
States.\2\
—————————————————————————

\1\ Notice of Inquiry, Information Privacy and Innovation in the
Internet Economy, 75 FR 21226 (Apr. 23, 2010), available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2010/FR_PrivacyNOI_04232010.pdf
.
Comments received in response to this Notice of Inquiry are posted
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/100402174-0175-01/.
\2\ The Public Meeting Notice, 75 FR 19942 (Apr. 16, 2010), and
the meeting agenda are available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
internetpolicytaskforce/
.
—————————————————————————

The Department has now prepared a report, entitled “Commercial
Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy
Framework,” as a vehicle to spur further discussion with Internet
stakeholders on this important area of policy development.\3\
—————————————————————————

\3\ The report is available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
internetpolicytaskforce/
.
—————————————————————————

Request for Comment: This Notice seeks input on the report. The
questions below, which also appear in Appendix A of the report, are
intended to assist in identifying issues. They should not be construed
as a limitation on comments that parties may submit. Comments that
contain references, studies, research and other empirical data that are
not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials
with the submitted comments.
(1) Should baseline commercial data privacy principles, such as
comprehensive FIPPs, be enacted by statute or other means, to address
how current privacy law is enforced?
(2) How should baseline privacy principles be enforced? Should they
be enforced by non-governmental entities in addition to being the basis
for FTC enforcement actions?
(3) As policymakers consider baseline commercial data privacy
legislation, should they seek to grant the FTC the authority to issue
more detailed rule? What criteria are useful for deciding which FIPPs
require further specification through rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedure Act?
(4) Should baseline commercial data privacy legislation include a
private right of action?
(5) What is the best way of promoting transparency so as to promote
informed choices? The Task Force is especially interested in comments
that address the benefits and drawbacks of legislative, regulatory, and
voluntary private sector approaches to promoting transparency.
(6) What incentives could be provided to encourage the development
and adoption of practical mechanisms to protect consumer privacy, such
as PIAs, to bring about clearer descriptions of an organization’s data
collection, use, and disclosure practices?
(7) What are the elements of a meaningful PIA in the commercial
context? Who should define these elements?
(8) What processes and information would be useful to assess
whether PIAs are effective in helping companies to identify, evaluate,
and address commercial data privacy issues?
(9) Should there be a requirement to publish PIAs in a standardized
and/or machine-readable format?
(10) What are consumers’ and companies’ experiences with systems
that display information about companies’ privacy practices in contexts
other than privacy policies?
(11) What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of
different transparency-enhancing techniques in an online world that
typically involves data from multiple sources being presented through a
single user interface?
(12) Do these (dis)advantages change when one considers the
increasing use of devices with more limited user interface options?
(13) Are purpose specifications a necessary or important method for
protecting commercial privacy?
(14) Currently, how common are purpose specification clauses in
commercial privacy policies?
(15) Do industry best practices concerning purpose specification
and use limitations exist? If not, how could their development be
encouraged?

[[Page 80044]]

(16) What incentives could be provided to encourage companies to
state clear, specific purposes for using personal information?
(17) How should purpose specifications be implemented and enforced?
(18) How can purpose specifications and use limitations be changed
to meet changing circumstances?
(19) Who should be responsible for demonstrating that a private
sector organization’s data use is consistent with its obligations? What
steps should be taken if inconsistencies are found?
(20) Are technologies available to allow consumers to verify that
their personal information is used in ways that are consistent with
their expectations?
(21) Are technologies available to help companies monitor their
data use, to support internal accountability mechanisms?
(22) How should performance against stated policies and practices
be assessed?
(23) What incentives could be provided to encourage companies to
adopt technologies that would facilitate audits of information use
against the company’s stated purposes and use limitations?
(24) Should the FTC be given rulemaking authority triggered by
failure of a multi-stakeholder process to produce a voluntary
enforceable code within a specified time period?
(25) How can the Commerce Department best encourage the discussion
and development of technologies such as “Do Not Track”?
(26) Under what circumstances should the PPO recommend to the
Administration that new policies are needed to address failure by a
multi-stakeholder process to produce an approved code of conduct?
(27) How can cooperation be fostered between the National
Association of Attorneys General, or similar entities, and the PPO?
(28) Do FIPPs require further regulatory elaboration to enforce, or
are they sufficient on their own?
(29) What should be the scope of FTC rulemaking authority?
(30) Should FIPPs be considered an independent basis for FTC
enforcement, or should FTC privacy investigations still be conducted
under Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5 “unfair and deceptive”
jurisdiction, buttressed by the explicit articulation of the FIPPs?
(31) Should non-governmental entities supplement FTC enforcement of
voluntary codes?
(32) At what point in the development and of a voluntary,
enforceable code of conduct should the FTC review it for approval?
Potential options include providing an ex ante “seal of approval,”
delaying approval until the code is in use for a specific amount of
time, and delaying approval until enforcement action is taken against
the code.
(33) What steps or conditions are necessary to make a company’s
commitment to follow a code of conduct enforceable?
(34) What factors should breach notification be predicated upon
(e.g., a risk assessment of the potential harm from the breach, a
specific threshold such as number of records, etc.)?
(35) Are there lessons from sector-specific privacy laws–their
development, their contents, or their enforcement–that could inform
U.S. commercial data privacy policy?
(36) Should a preemption provision of national FIPPs-based
commercial data privacy policy be narrowly tailored to apply to
specific practices or subject matter, leaving states free to regulate
emerging technologies? Or should national policy, in the case of
legislation, contain a broad preemption provision?
(37) How could a preemption provision ensure that federal law is no
less protective than any existing state laws? What are useful criteria
for comparatively assessing how protective different laws are?
(38) To what extent should state Attorneys General be empowered to
enforce national commercial data privacy legislation?
(39) Should national FIPPs-based commercial data privacy
legislation preempt state unfair and deceptive trade practices laws?
(40) The Task Force seeks case studies and statistics that provide
evidence of concern–or comments explaining why concerns are
unwarranted–about cloud computing data privacy and security in the
commercial context. We also seek data that links any such concerns to
decisions to adopt, or refrain from adopting, cloud computing services.
(41) The Task Force also seeks input on whether the current legal
protections for transactional information and location information
raise questions about what commercial data privacy expectations are
reasonable and whether additional protections should be mandated by
law. The Task Force also invites comments that discuss whether privacy
protections for access to location information need clarification in
order to facilitate the development, deployment and widespread adoption
of new location-based services.
(42) The Task Force seeks information from the law enforcement
community regarding the use of ECPA today and how investigations might
be affected by proposed amendments to ECPA’s provisions.

Dated: December 16, 2010.
Gary Locke,
Secretary of Commerce.

Lawrence E. Strickling,
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.

Francisco J. S[aacute]nchez,
Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade.

Patrick Gallagher,
Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-31971 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-P

Notice of Meeting: NASA Advisory Council, Exploration Committee on January 11, 2011

December 22, 2010 at 10:03 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Federal Register

[Federal Register: December 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 80081-80082]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21de10-79]

———————————————————————–

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: (10-167)]

NASA Advisory Council; Exploration Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration announces a meeting of the Exploration Committee of the
NASA Advisory Council.

DATES: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 10:30 a.m.-5:45 p.m., Local Time

ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, Glennan Conference Room-1Q39; 300 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Bette Siegel, Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-2245;
bette.siegel@nasa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda topics for the meeting will
include:
Status of the Exploration Program.
Future Planning for Human Exploration.
Status of the Commercial Crew Initiative.
Final Report of the Ad-Hoc Task Force on Planetary
Defense.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity
of the room. It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates
to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
Visitors will need to show a valid government-issued picture
identification such as driver’s license or passport at the Visitor
Center in the West Lobby, and must state they are attending the NASA
Advisory Council Exploration Committee meeting in the Glennan
Conference Room-1Q39. Further, no later than January 3, 2011, all non-
U.S. citizens must submit the following information to Dr. Bette
Siegel, Room 7T15, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20546; Fax (202) 358-3091: Name, current address, citizenship, company
affiliation (if applicable) to include address, telephone number, and
their title, place of birth, date of birth, U.S. visa information to
include type, number, and expiration date, U.S. Social Security Number
(if applicable), Permanent

[[Page 80082]]

Resident Alien card number and expiration date (if applicable), place
and date of entry into the U.S., and passport information to include
country of issue, number, and expiration date.
For questions, please call Bette Siegel at (202) 358-2245.

Dated: December 14, 2010.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-31977 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P

 

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.